Subscribe

August 27, 2016

New Report Examines Scientific Studies on Sexuality and Gender

The journal The New Atlantis has published “a careful summary and an up-to-date explanation of research—from the biological, psychological, and social sciences—related to sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Co-authored by two of the nation’s leading scholars on mental health and sexuality, the 143-page report discusses over 200 peer-reviewed studies in the biological, psychological, and social sciences, painstakingly documenting what scientific research shows and does not show about sexuality and gender.

The major takeaway, as the editor of the journal explains, is that “some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence.”

Read Anderson’s summary of four major conclusions of the study, or read the report’s executive summary (or the full report) here. We will surely see pushback against this study. Watch to see if those arguing against it refute its analysis of the available evidence or merely attack its writers. Anything that falls into the first category should be carefully considered.

Comments

You don't think it's relevant that The New Atlantis is published by the Ethics And Public Policy Center, whose stated mission is to be "Washington, D.C.'s premier institute applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy"? (It also has a virtually non-existent impact factor, so there's that.)

And, have you also considered the comprehensive rebuttal recently published in Snarky Atheism Quarterly, a prestigious, peer-reviewed, open-access journal published by the Institute for Counter-Judeo-Christian Studies? It's really making some waves in the scholarly arena.

So again, as S.O.P. of the liberal atheist, you will categorically discredit (without honest review) a supposedly Judeo-Christian "biased" study that contradicts your own personal ideological and political views while simultaneously promoting, (as fact), an anti-Judeo-Christian "biased" rebuttal because it does fit your ideological agenda. I am sorry that you intellectual free-thinkers in the "scholarly arena" are annoyed with those of us who thoughtfully (and ethically) consider ALL the evidence before making conclusions on important legitimate theories, (many of which have been co-opted by liberal activists for personal political and financial gain). You all can go right on being super impressed with yourselves. I prefer the honest search for the actual truth, (whatever that may end up being), to the "safe-space" mentality of insulating ones fragile ego in a shroud of self-important socio-political ideology.

See, Amy, if you want proof that atheists can be moral, consider this: I am going to resist the temptation to tell James S. to go to his local library and ask for Snarky Atheism Quarterly on inter-library loan. (Or worse, sell him a subscription!)

Watch to see if those arguing against it refute its analysis of the available evidence or merely attack its writers.

I haven’t read the study. But check out Phillip A’s brilliant analysis of the evidence above. He’s not erroneously attacking the writers for their beliefs; he’s giving the content of the study a real hearing.

Phillip A wrote:

Note: this is not the first time this has happened to me, and it makes my day every time.

Interesting. That's a day maker? Perhaps you should publish this critique of the study. Keep up the good work.

Philip,
Are you saying that a man sticking his penis in another man's anus, from where feces come out, is normal sexual behavior that should be sanctioned by reason and vindicated by science?

Should we even invest financial resources in such scientific studies that involve 1-3% of the population (and a population group that is well below the reproductive rate) when we could use the resources to fight poverty, hunger, and diseases that affect a much greater share of the population?

Even from a utilitarian, pragmatist, darwinist, rortian atheistic viewpoint, how does this make sense?

The New Atlantis is a nonpartisan publication; indeed, the subjects addressed in our pages often cut across existing political lines, forcing liberals and conservatives, progressives and libertarians, to revisit their guiding principles. We are published by a nonprofit organization that receives most of its support from private foundations and individual donors; we receive no funding from business or government sources.
Small journals of ideas can have an outsized influence on how we think and live. It is our hope that The New Atlantis can help us all — as citizens, scientists, policymakers, and human beings — to deal more wisely and more creatively with both the burdens and the blessings of modern science and technology.

This seems counter to Phillip A's assertion that this journal is "premier institute applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy."

From the evidence gathered from scanning the site one gathers The New Atlantic is a "pox on both your houses" organization.

The history of 'sodomy' laws during the Christian period doesn't seem like something you should call attention to given the opinions you've expressed.

In 1779, Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in Virginia which contained a punishment of castration for men who engage in sodomy. Jefferson intended this to be a liberalization of the sodomy laws in Virginia at that time, which prescribed death as the maximum penalty for the crime of sodomy. It was rejected by the Virginia legislature.

"You don't think it's relevant that The New Atlantis is published by the Ethics And Public Policy Center, whose stated mission is to be "Washington, D.C.'s premier institute applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy"? (It also has a virtually non-existent impact factor, so there's that.)"

Name the points in the study that were factually incorrect, and upon what basis you say that.

Ron,
The link shows that it is a false dichotomy to say that you either approve of homosexuality and homosexual marriage or you get Malaysia, since the US sodomy laws in 1996 and 2008 were not like the ones in Malaysia.

Besides, some of those sodomy lows applied to heterosexual and married couples, not just homosexuals. They were not targeting homosexuals.

We might not castrate or execute people who engage in bestiality or pedophilia, but that does not mean we approve of it either.

Ron,
From the Wikipedia article on U.S sodomy laws:
"Through the 20th century, the gradual liberalization of American sexual morals led to the elimination of sodomy laws in most states. During this time, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986. However, in 2003 the Supreme Court reversed the decision with Lawrence v. Texas, invalidating sodomy laws in the remaining 14 states."

In 1996 the U.S. did not have the same laws as Malaysia. Even more so in 2003, since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled sodomy laws in the remaining states unconstitutional.

Therefore stating, as you did, that we either abandon 'reason' (the Judeo-Christian worldview) or we have Malaysia is a false dichotomy and an appeal to fear.

As for pedophilia and bestiality, they were brought up as examples to make the same point clearer, as I suppose that the U.S. still criminalizes such sexual practices without applying penal sanctions similar to Malaysia.